Probably the most difficult limited-government issues involve determining the substantive rights as they pertain to individuals in a representative, federalist democracy.

These rights are generally stated in the United States Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution) and the phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Theoretically, the only limitations on these individual liberties are those (both property and personal) that pose a “clear and present danger” to society or to other individuals.

As in past elections, the concept of limited government has been alluded to very often by political candidates in the present political campaign. However, most of the politicians using the phrase limited government or one of its numerous synonyms or definitions are not really concerned about clarifying its meaning.

Their major purpose in calling attention to the concept is to becloud or disguise its meaning in such a way that it will contribute to their political advantage.

Generally, Republican and Democratic politicians hold significantly different views or emphases regarding limited government, no matter how they express their position in speeches. Republicans, when they use the phrase, are more often referring to the sanctity of private property and the corresponding principle that the latter property should not be regulated or progressively taxed by government. The Republicans who tend to have more property, and therefore consequently trust propertied individuals more, feel that the owners of property require less regulation and taxing. It follows, therefore, the Republicans believe the persons with less property and rank and file need to have their rights regulated more (poorer people are less trustworthy) for the good of society, which to many Republicans means suppression of words or deeds in any way threatening to the status quo or to private-property rights.

In comparison, most Democrats, when they talk about limited government, usually are referring to individual rights such as free speech and assembly, separation of church and state, the right of labor to strike, the rights of the accused, the right of privacy and the privilege of freedom of choice in lifestyles.

Democrats generally have respect for private property, but they do not view it with reverence that most Republicans do. Consequently, the Democrats as a rule are more willing than Republicans to have the government encroach upon private property rights for the best interest (as they see it) of society.

In summary then, the Republican position on limited government tends more toward greater economic and social inequality and more government-mandated moral and social conformity.

In contrast, the Democratic position tends toward greater economic and social equality and more tolerance of diverse ideas and lifestyles as long as they are non-discriminating to other individuals and groups.

The explanation for these differences in emphasis on limited government between the major parties is probably not due to more morality and/or reason in one party than the other. It is rather primarily due to the composition of the parties.

The Democratic Party is an umbrella organization that represents a much more diverse constituency made up of more of the people with less property and other minorities (who often have very little status or wealth).

As a result, the Democratic Party tends to be for greater economic and social equality and greater tolerance of diverse lifestyles and views in order to hold the loyalty of its voters.

In contrast, the Republican Party is a more homogeneous party made up more of the wealthy class and those who revere respectability and the economic optimism implicit in the American dream (believe persevering poor person can get rich). Because of its composition, the latter party therefore quite readily favors greater economic inequality and less tolerance of divergent lifestyles.

Although based on somewhat different values, both of these emphases related to limited government have some validity. Moreover, as is true in most cases, the best approach probably lies somewhere between the Democratic and Republican positions on limited government.

However, the preservation of the principle of limited government is probably as indispensable to American freedom as popular sovereignty.

Therefore, U.S. voters have an awesome responsibility to carefully examine the viewpoints of political candidates on their limited-government positions to be sure that the latter hold views in this area conducive to the nurture, growth and perpetuation of a vibrant representative democracy.

Kenneth R. Walker, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of History at Arkansas Tech University.